View cases - Stewart McKelvey

May 813, does “not differ in any material respect from a typical manufacturing plant” (para. 29).The description in the reasons of Vice-Chairman R. O. MacDowell is telling:There is no close involvement with the family farm. The production process is notseasonal, but rather, resembles a production cycle. The labour force is neither casualnor transitory. The operation is of considerable size, employing close to 200employees in a single location with a “factory atmosphere”; and the company ismuch less economically vulnerable than many other employers to which The LabourRelations Act applies. [para. 25]2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)[358] Preventing all agricultural workers from access to a process of collective bargainingin order to protect family farms, no matter their size or character, is the antithesis of minimalimpairment. Such a limitation harms the s. 2(d) right in its entirety, not minimally.[359] The other government objective is more general — the protection of the viability offarms and agricultural production. It is instructive to consider the 1992 recommendations of theOntario government’s consultative Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations, composed ofrepresentatives from the agricultural community, organized labour, farm workers andgovernment (Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations, Report to the Minister of Labour(June 1992); Second Report to the Minister of Labour (November 1992)). The Task Force’srecommendations in its two reports are germane not because they should be seen as binding, butbecause they demonstrate that there are “less harmful means” than an absolute exclusion toachieve the government’s objective of protecting agricultural production and viability.